A. C. BROWN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A. C. Brown, as administrator of an estate, was convicted of secreting property with intent to embezzle under Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that an administrator can be criminally liable for embezzlement of estate property and that the indictment was sufficiently clear.
An administrator who secretes estate property with intent to embezzle can be held criminally liable under the statute. The indictment was not vague, indefinite, or misleading but rather charged every necessary element of the offense and properly identified the property and Brown's official status.
“There is nothing in the language, context or history of the statute which supports the plaintiff in error's contention that an administrator who secretes with intent to embezzle the goods of an estate delivered to him in his capacity as administrator, is to be excluded from being held criminally liable under the language of the Act which is by no means restrictive in its scope, or as to persons within its purview.”
Establishes that administrators are subject to criminal liability for embezzlement of estate property under the statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA. C. Brown was appointed as administrator of the estate of J. J. Brown, deceased. He was charged with feloniously and fraudulently concealing $346.25…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
'Plaintiff in Error was convicted under Section 7245, C.G.L., 5144 R.G.S., of secreting with intent to embezzle certain property which had been delivered to him as administrator of the estate of J. J. Brown, deceased.
The indictment under which the conviction was had charges that the -defendant did then and there “feloniously and fraudulently conceal for his own use certain property, then and there being the subject of larceny, delivered to him the said A. C. Brown, by virtue of his appointment and status as administrator of the estate of J. J. *225Brown, deceased, by action of the County Judge’s Court of Walton County, Florida, to-wit, three hundred and forty six dollars and twenty-five cents of the value of $346.25, in money, currency and coin of the United States of America, a better description whereof is to the Grand Jurors unknown, the said property being of the property of the estate of J. J. Brown, deceased.”
This indictment is not so vague, indistinct and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense, so the motion to quash was properly denied. Revell v. State, 85 Fla. 502, 96 So. 156; Douglas v. State, 53 Fla. 27, 43 So. 424; Edwards v. State, 62 Fla. 40, 56 So. 401; Wolf v. State, 72 Fla. 572, 73 So. 740; Atkins vs. State, 86 Fla. 564, 98 So. 609; Bryant v. State, 89 Fla. 26, 103 So. 170.
The indictment here involved charges every element that is necessary to constitute an offense under Section 7245, C.G.L., 5144 R.G.S. The ownership of the property is shown, and is properly stated to have been in the estate of J. J. Brown, deceased, of which estate the indictment shows the defendant himself was appointed as administrator. People v. Dates, 29 Cal. App. 260, 155 Pac. 112. There is nothing in the language, context or history of the statute which supports the plaintiff in error’s contention that an administrator who secretes with intent to embezzle the goods of an estate delivered to him in his capacity as administrator, is to be excluded from being held criminally liable under the language of the Act which is by no means restrictive in its scope, or as to persons within its purview.
Objections to the admission of certain evidence were *226made and strenuously insisted upon and the sufficiency. of tbe evidence to support tbe verdict rendered was challenged by a motion for a new trial. It does not appear however that any material or harmful error was committed in the admission of evidence or in the refusal to grant a new trial, so the judgment must be affirmed. Drawdy v. State, 97 Fla. 367, 120 So. 575; Kirkland v. State, 86 Fla. 64, 97 So. 502; Knight v. State, 152 Ala. 56, 44 So. 585; Territory v. Hale, 13 Ann. Cas. 551.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Buford, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J.,' concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Pierce, 201 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 1967)…making the demand.’ The offense had no existence until after a lawful demand, within the meaning of the statute, was made, and from the date of that demand the statute of limitations began to run." (Emphasis supplied.) Also compare Brown v. State, 101 Fla. 223, 133 So. 866, and Fitch v. State, 135 Fla. 361, 185 So. 435, 125 A.L.R. 360. Thus the decision under review is quashed with directions that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed. It is so ordered. O’CONNELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CALDWE…
Authorities Cited
- Akin v. State, 86 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1923)
- Kirkland v. State, 86 Fla. 64 (Fla. 1923)
- Wolf v. State, 72 Fla. 572 (Fla. 1917)
- Edwards v. State, 62 Fla. 40 (Fla. 1911)
- Walker Bryant v. State, 89 Fla. 26 (Fla. 1925)
- Douglass v. State, 53 Fla. 27 (Fla. 1907)
- Dozier Washington Drawdy v. State, 97 Fla. 367 (Fla. 1929)